Let´s talk about that identification again

[Lechmere]

Jonathan
It is somewhat easier to check on the where about of a suspect that they were told is dead when he isn’t. Asking for verification from the institution the suspect was an inmate in for example. Asking to see the death certificate for example. Questioning the information who supposedly gave the wrong information.
What are we to believe?
That a memo crossed Swanson’s death from someone or another (I can’t think who) saying (incorrectly) ‘Kosminsky is dead’ and he just breathed a sigh of relief and told Anderson?
Or Macnaghten popped into his office one day band said, by the way, ‘Kosminsky is dead so no need to bother about the Ripper case anymore.’
And Swanson just said:
‘OK, case closed.’

[Garry Wroe]

I would say POTENTIAL significance, Garry. Not something that would hold up in a court of law, as you will appreciate.

What I mean, Fish, when saying that investigators believed Schwartz had seen something of significance is that Schwartz witnessed an assault perpetrated on a woman who within fifteen minutes would be found murdered just feet away. Whether the assault and murder were perpetrated by the same person is open to question. Even if not, though, the assault remained a significant event in the last minutes of Stride’s life.

I can´t offer somebody better, that´s for sure, Garry - but I have the distinct feeling that I need to do so to live up to Anderson and Swansons given description of the built-in qualities of the witness...

Ultimately, Fish, despite the talk of the mysterious Mitre Square PC, the issue of Anderson’s witness boils down to one of two men – Lawende or Schwartz. Of the two only Schwartz saw violent or menacing behaviour inflicted upon what was thought to have been a Ripper victim. Hence only Schwartz’s testimony would have stood a chance of securing a conviction in its own right.

Some have expressed scepticism over Swanson’s comments regarding this latter issue, maintaining that the Schwartz sighting could never have brought about a guilty verdict. I fear, however, that late-Victorian jurisprudence has been confused with its modern and far more forensic counterpart. In Swanson’s day a man could be convicted on a combination of bad character and highly circumstantial evidence. The Lipski case is illuminating in this context, as are the relatively recent convictions of Tim Evans and Derek Bentley. Thus the police didn’t need to catch the killer in the act to secure a conviction. The Schwartz sighting coupled with Stride’s likely time of death might have proved sufficient to convince a jury that these two events were part of a single sequence, one that commenced with a physical assault and ended in murder. By this time, of course, the jury would have been predisposed to believe the worst of Kosminski, having heard evidence relating to his masturbatory habits, hatred of women and his alleged propensity toward violence. Irrespective of what you or I may think about the matter, Swanson certainly believed that the evidence was there to convict Kosminski, and this must weigh heavily in the balance given what I assume was Swanson’s vast experience in preparing cases for trial.

Look at a map, Garry. Croydon, Purley, Horley, Copthorne, Crawley, Pease Pottage, Bolney, Sayers Common, Hurstpierpoint and Poynings are passed along the way to Brighton. If the police could not shake the press off along that road, why would they shake them off in Brighton...? And what better place to perform the ID than Copthorne!
I´m not saying that you are wrong, since I can´t be sure. So we will have to opt for a difference in mind here.

Again, Fish, my suspicion that the Seaside Home identification was a covert operation is not evidentially based, so I’m in no position to argue with your logic. My feeling, however, is that the Pizer affair and the negative publicity that ensued from it may have influenced police thinking where Kosminski was concerned. I also think that Anderson’s remarks make it pretty clear that Kosminski’s immediate family were becoming protective where Aaron was concerned, perhaps fearing that Aaron would be fitted up or that his identification as a Ripper suspect could have serious ramifications for Aaron personally and the local Jewish community generally. Thus the Seaside Home venue might have been a compromise aimed to facilitate the identification at a safe location and reassure the Kosminski family that Aaron wouldn’t become the object of a witch-hunt at the hands of the London newspapers. This would explain Anderson’s claim that the murderer was being shielded by his family as well as Swanson’s assertion that Kosminski was sent to the Seaside Home with difficulty. Once more, though, this is no more than speculation on my part, and I'd be happy to evolve my thinking if anyone could come up with a better argument.

Good thread, by the way. The best I've seen on Casebook for some time.

[Jonathan H]

How are Anderson (and Swanson) supposed to keep track of a deceased suspect if they believe he's deceased?

[Lechmere]

Wickerman
"Once in the system why does it matter which cell he spends eternity in?"

This is unrealistic. Inmates got released if they got better, they got transferred to more relaxed institutions, they escaped.

Taking your view that it was really Anderson who believed this stuff about 'Kosminski' then he would have been very negligent to not keep reliable track of the worst criminal in the Empire.
What of Swanson? I guess that by your theory he was aware of Anderson's theory but less enthusiastic or sure about it. Nevertheless it would have been his duty to ensure he knew the fate of this inmate, particularly if he was 'in charge' of the investigation.

[Fisherman]

These are interesting thoughts, Jon. On really must accept that the primary goal for the police must have been to get the Ripper off the streets, so by and large, you are making a great point, I think.

Theorizing that you are correct about the non-existant evidence, would you say that it would be fair to reason that the moral Anderson would want to justify the steps taken in any manner ...? To provide, as it were, the whole story with some sort of morally functioning backup story?

And yes, of course I am speaking about the ID. Somebody must ask that question. It would provide a whole different take on why it was staged at "the Seaside Home", would it not ...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Interesting point Wick
But don't you find it hard to believe that if they really thought they had the ripper, and if the plan was just to get him locked in the asylum (or even if it wasn't) that they could possibly lose track of him, once this was accomplished?

No Abby I don't.
Once in the system why does it matter which cell he spends eternity in?

I'm not so sure this is a 'they' so much as a 'he'.
It is my contention that this was Anderson's suspect, Swanson was largely non-committal on the subject.
We already see Anderson was guided by a vein of 'moral certainty', I think this ran counter to Swanson's more 'by-the-book' approach.

Swanson's closing remark, if you notice was:
"Kosminski was the suspect"
This is Swanson's conscience speaking, in other words, he was not convinced.

Regards, Jon S.

[Lechmere]

This illustrates that no credible theory can be formulated by sticking to the claims made by Anderson and in the marginalia.
Parts have to be ignored or minimised or made vaguer than a normal reading of the text allows.
What does this suggest?
The most obvious answer is that the police didn't know who did it, that some senior policemen fooled themselves for egotistical reasons that they had solved the matter, but based their internally comforting claims on muddled up facts, conflated evidence and their own recreated memory that was no doubt mutually supported through after hours discussions over the following years.

[Abby Normal]

F.M.
Regardless who the witness was, the witness did not see the suspect in the act of murdering the victim.
No-one is going to hang.

The best we have would be Schwartz as the witness, who saw B.S. man some 10-15 minutes before the crime was committed, and no weapon was seen.

Next would be Lawende, who saw a suspect some 160+ feet away from the scene, and 8-10 minutes before the murder occurred, again no weapon seen.

A lot can happen in 10 minutes, anyone from within the club could have found Stride on the ground in the alley and sliced her throat after B.S. man left.
Also, anyone turning out of the Synagogue in Duke St. could have taken a short cut through Mitre Sq. and murdered Eddowes.

All this Witness was doing, at best, was placing someone in the vicinity of the crime, you don't hang for that.
If Swanson had anything at all on the suspect, he would have been charged.
This was not any pocket-pinching Bill Sykes, this was Jack the Ripper, they'd have hauled him in for swearing if they could.

There was no evidence.



I haven't read anyone mention this before but I suspect, assuming this whole ID scenario is accurate (which I doubt), that Anderson intended to have the suspect committed, not charged with any crime.

I think Swanson knew they had nothing on him by way of evidence, but here was a potential loop-hole in that if they could have someone place the suspect near the scene of the crime, that would satisfy Anderson, and he had 'people' who could make the paperwork happen, but only if the suspect was ID'd.
The fact the suspect was 'mad' was a plus, and the family were also having trouble with him so they would likely comply with any suggestion about what to do with him.
Anderson was convinced this was the killer, Swanson, not so much, why? - because they had no evidence.

This ID was all about incarceration for life, not about conviction.

Interesting point Wick
But don't you find it hard to believe that if they really thought they had the ripper, and if the plan was just to get him locked in the asylum (or even if it wasn't) that they could possibly lose track of him, once this was accomplished?

[Wickerman]

F.M.
Regardless who the witness was, the witness did not see the suspect in the act of murdering the victim.
No-one is going to hang.

The best we have would be Schwartz as the witness, who saw B.S. man some 10-15 minutes before the crime was committed, and no weapon was seen.

Next would be Lawende, who saw a suspect some 160+ feet away from the scene, and 8-10 minutes before the murder occurred, again no weapon seen.

A lot can happen in 10 minutes, anyone from within the club could have found Stride on the ground in the alley and sliced her throat after B.S. man left.
Also, anyone turning out of the Synagogue in Duke St. could have taken a short cut through Mitre Sq. and murdered Eddowes.

All this Witness was doing, at best, was placing someone in the vicinity of the crime, you don't hang for that.
If Swanson had anything at all on the suspect, he would have been charged.
This was not any pocket-pinching Bill Sykes, this was Jack the Ripper, they'd have hauled him in for swearing if they could.

There was no evidence.



I haven't read anyone mention this before but I suspect, assuming this whole ID scenario is accurate (which I doubt), that Anderson intended to have the suspect committed, not charged with any crime.

I think Swanson knew they had nothing on him by way of evidence, but here was a potential loop-hole in that if they could have someone place the suspect near the scene of the crime, that would satisfy Anderson, and he had 'people' who could make the paperwork happen, but only if the suspect was ID'd.
The fact the suspect was 'mad' was a plus, and the family were also having trouble with him so they would likely comply with any suggestion about what to do with him.
Anderson was convinced this was the killer, Swanson, not so much, why? - because they had no evidence.

This ID was all about incarceration for life, not about conviction.

[lynn cates]

evidence

Hello Mac. Out of curiousity, if hanging evidence were had by SY, why would the fellow Jew's testimony be needed?

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

There was no evidence.

Ah yes, I missed the part where Swanson wrote: "there was no evidence and bizarrely the murderer, I mean misunderstood suspect, would have hanged; not on my conscience I should add as I'm not writing this - it's all Anderson".

[RivkahChaya]

Well, Dave, what I am discussing here is not the means of travel, but the apparent lacking necessity to go that far away from London in search of a safe place to conduct an ID process.

Not to mention, it would be pretty conspicuous to bring a JTR suspect into the city for an ID, with the kind of security he would require. Considering the tenor of the East End, a train bring a high-security subject into the city might have been mobbed, and the suspect lynched. It wasn't a certainty, but it was something the police had to consider when deciding whether to bring the witness to the suspect, or vice-versa.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman...if you travel by road...but why would you? The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway offered a splendid service between London and Brighton, (and had for forty-odd years), which surely offered a more efficient journey and an ideal opportunity to lose the press...I should think a closed carriage could be hired at Brighton Station...or provided by a co-operative Brighton force...alternatively there were/are stations along the coast to Hove/Portslade too...

All the best

Dave

Well, Dave, what I am discussing here is not the means of travel, but the apparent lacking necessity to go that far away from London in search of a safe place to conduct an ID process.

What I think we must do, is to ponder what happens when we add distance to this prospect. Let´s say, for instance, that Swanson had said that the suspect had been transported to Edinburgh to perform the ID process. Or Rio de Janeiro. In such a case, nobody would have said "that was probably because the police wanted to perform the ID with a little secrecy, away from it all".

I would submit that we would all agree that bringing the suspect to Edinburgh or Rio would tell us that there was someone or something in Edinburgh or Rio that was crucial to the process as such.

And for me, Brighton is quite far enough away for me to conclude that if only secrecy was what the police were after, then there was no need to go that far.

I´m having a hard time envisaging the police fetching their witness, and boarding the Brighton train whilst colleagues of theirs boarded the next train (they would not want to chance a meeting on the platform, would they?) with the suspect, bringing a mad knife killer along amongst ordinary passengers. Or maybe the killer was brought there in a carriage?

We have an extraordinarily long journey. We have thousands of possibilities that involved shorter routes. We have an ID at a "Seaside Home", quite probably tending to Met and/or City policemen, recovering from ill health or some sort of trauma, physical or psychological, perhaps impossible to move. And we have a lot of murmuring about a PC sigthing of a killer. Plus we have Anderson as a primary source, the unreliable, boastful Anderson, who made quite a rot of a number of things and who mixed things up in other errands.

So, Dave train or no train ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

A thoroughly modern police force

Look at a map, Garry. Croydon, Purley, Horley, Copthorne, Crawley, Pease Pottage, Bolney, Sayers Common, Hurstpierpoint and Poynings are passed along the way to Brighton. If the police could not shake the press off along that road, why would they shake them off in Brighton...? And what better place to perform the ID than Copthorne!
I´m not saying that you are wrong, since I can´t be sure. So we will have to opt for a difference in mind here.

Hi Fisherman...if you travel by road...but why would you? The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway offered a splendid service between London and Brighton, (and had for forty-odd years), which surely offered a more efficient journey and an ideal opportunity to lose the press...I should think a closed carriage could be hired at Brighton Station...or provided by a co-operative Brighton force...alternatively there were/are stations along the coast to Hove/Portslade too...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Dear god.

Clearly the evidence was sufficient for Swanson to conclude: "murderer would have hanged".

If the evidence would have convicted the suspect is that not tantamount to Swanson saying: "this is the man"?

Or are you saying Swanson meant: "the evidence before my eyes, which I have helped put together, will convict the man, but I think it's on shakey ground".

What could such evidence possibly be?

Swanson believed it was strong enough to convict but he didn't believe it. Is that possible?

There was no evidence.